Can my employer increase my working hours?

Mrs_Arcanum

With the changes you might have a case for constructive dismissal.

Googlewhacker

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

With the changes you might have a case for constructive dismissal.

Unlikely, the OP would have to go through the grievance procedure and as I mentioned, if the business can show that the changes are needed for the good of the business and are legal then it it unlikely that they will lose in a tribunal.

Just my opinion though and better people than I may say differant.

relic

You don't work in Sheffield do you?

I saw a job advertised this morning with the exact same hours as that, was quite an interesting job too!

bendix

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

With the changes you might have a case for constructive dismissal.

Utter utter nonsense.

Mrs_Arcanum

bendix wrote: »

Utter utter nonsense.

No lunch breaks and over 48 hours per week are not acceptable regardless of "business needs".

Rest breaks - a break during your working day


As an adult worker (over 18), you will normally have the right to a 20 minute rest break if you are expected to work more than six hours at a stretch. So you must have a break in the middle of the day even if you do a 6.5 hour shift (even before 6 hours have been worked).

A lunch or coffee break can count as your rest break. Additional breaks might be given by your contract of employment. There is no statutory right to 'smoking breaks'.
The requirements are:

• the break must be in one block
• it cannot be taken off one end of the working day - it must be somewhere in the middle
• you are allowed to spend it away from the place on your employer's premises where you work
• your employer can say when the break must be taken, as long as it meets these conditions

The weekly maximum working hours

Adult workers cannot be forced to work more than 48 hours a week on average - this is normally averaged over 17 weeks. You can work more than 48 hours in one week, as long as the average over 17 weeks is less than 48 hours per week.
Your working week is not covered by the working time limits if you have a job:

• where you can choose freely how long you will work (eg a managing executive)
• in the armed forces, emergency services and police - in some circumstances
• as a domestic servant in private houses
• as a sea transport worker, a mobile worker in inland waterways or a lake transport worker on board sea going fishing vessels

Both quotes taken from the Yougov website

SarEl

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

No lunch breaks and over 48 hours per week are not acceptable regardless of "business needs". Not entirely correct. No lunch breaks is correct - there is a legal entitlement to 20 minutes if an employee works six hours or more in a day. But the OP is not working over 48 hours per week (although an opt-out would in fact make it possible if they were). The average hours are worked out over a period of time, and the OP has 4 hours fewer hours every three weeks - this average brings the hours worked below the 48 hours.


Both quotes taken from the Yougov website Potted law isn't law - it's potted! It doesn't reflect the full legal psoition and acts as guidance only. You cannot depend on potted law for legal advice

I agree with the advice given elsewhere. To make such a change the employer does need to consult, but they can certainly enforce it, and I have serious doubts that a tribunal would support a claim if the employer can show business need. And to claim constructive dismissal the OP would have to resign, which would be a bit silly! The OP may be able to claim unfair dismissal through breach of contract and continue working provided that they (a) reject the changes and (b) if they are enforced, make it clear that they are continuing to work under protest. But is would be a dodgy claim if the employer can show that they have business requirements for this change, and not career enhancing since the employer is highly unlikely to take it well.

Mrs_Arcanum

SarEl wrote: »

I agree with the advice given elsewhere. To make such a change the employer does need to consult, but they can certainly enforce it, and I have serious doubts that a tribunal would support a claim if the employer can show business need. And to claim constructive dismissal the OP would have to resign, which would be a bit silly! The OP may be able to claim unfair dismissal through breach of contract and continue working provided that they (a) reject the changes and (b) if they are enforced, make it clear that they are continuing to work under protest. But is would be a dodgy claim if the employer can show that they have business requirements for this change, and not career enhancing since the employer is highly unlikely to take it well.

Regardless of hours, they cannot enforce no breaks.

Sambucus_Nigra

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Regardless of hours, they cannot enforce no breaks.

They CAN enforce no breaks. However it is up to the employee whether or not to take action to force the employer to give them breaks.

SarEl

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

Regardless of hours, they cannot enforce no breaks.

And where exactly did I say that they could? Is this one of those "I gave someone the wrong advice but a bit of it was right" sort of points? But Sambucus is right - they certainly can enforce it, and then it is up to the employee to stop them from doing so by using the WTD. There is a difference between "the law says the employer must..." and the employer doing it. An employer can do anything they want - lawful or not. Whether they can get away with it is another matter.

hcb42

That's a lot of hours for that pay OP. Good luck with finding a resolution